Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SYNOPSIS
Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 12, of Ormoc City of three (3) counts of rape of 11-year old Regina Gua n
and sentenced him to two (2) terms of reclusion perpetua for the rst two counts, and to
death for the third. The trial court sentenced appellant to death, holding that his common-
law relationship with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty. The trial court ruled
that the circumstances of nighttime and relationship aggravated all the three incidents of
rape, and considering that the last rape occurred after the effectivity of the RA 7659, the
death penalty law, the Court meted the capital punishment of death. In this appeal,
appellant maintains that the trial court erred in appreciating the circumstances of
nighttime and relationship as aggravating the penalty imposable to the rape allegedly
committed on October 9, 1992 and on December 26, 1994.
The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was
deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate his dastardly acts. Neither can the Court
appreciate relationship as an aggravating circumstance. Relationship by a nity refers to a
relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. The law cannot be stretched to include
persons attached by common-law relations. In the case at bar, there is no blood
relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim, he being the common-law
husband of the victim's grandmother. From the testimony of the victim, the crimes
committed by appellant were consummated rapes, not merely acts of lasciviousness. In
the face of complainant's positive and unequivocal testimony, appellant's plain denial of
the accusations against him cannot prevail. The rule is that testimonies of rape victims
who are young and immature are each worthy of credence. The Court a rmed with
modi cation the decision appealed from. Appellant shall not suffer the penalty of death
but shall serve three (3) terms of reclusion perpetua, one for each of the three counts of
rape for which he was found guilty by the trial court. ECDAcS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PANGANIBAN , J : p
The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law
relationship with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty. We hold, however, that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Sec. 11 of RA 7659 prescribes the capital penalty in rape, only "when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or a nity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse
of the parent of the victim," and not by reason of any other kinship. On the other hand,
"relationship" as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art. 15 of the Revised
Penal Code encompasses only "the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, and relative by a nity in the same degrees." Outside these
enumerations and consistent with the doctrine that criminal laws must be liberally
construed in favor of the accused, no other relationship, kinship or association between
the offender and the victim may aggravate the imposable penalty for the crime committed.
The fact, then, that the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellant's
live-in partner cannot justify the imposition of death upon the rapist.
The Case
This is a combined appeal from, and an automatic review of, the Joint Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, of Ormoc City, nding Appellant Alejandro Atop, alias
"Ali," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to two
(2) terms of reclusion perpetua for the first two counts, and to death for the third.
On April 21, 1995, Provincial Prosecutor I Rosario D. Beleta led four separate
informations 1 against accused-appellant charging him with rape on three separate
occasions — on October 9, 1992, sometime in 1993 and on December 26, 1994 — as well
as with attempted rape on December 31, 1994. The informations charging rape, except for
the date of commission and the age of the victim, similarly allege the following:
"That on or about the 9th day of October, 1992, at Sitio Tambunan, Brgy.
Sta. Rosa, Municipality of Matag-ob, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the herein offended party REGINA GUAFIN, 11 years old, the
accused is the live-in partner of her grandmother with whom she is living with
[sic], against her will and without her consent, with the use of a knife, mashed her
breast, embraced, kissed and inserted his penis over the victim's genital organ to
accomplish his lewd design, to her damage and prejudice."
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution's evidence is narrated by the trial court 6 as follows:
"Private complainant Regina Gua n, told the court that she is a
granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the accused Alejandro Atop is the
common law husband of said Trinidad Atop [sic]. Her mother is a daughter of
said Trinidad Atop [sic] and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child and
she does not even know her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her
grandmother Trinidad Atop [sic] and the accused at Barangay Santa Rosa, Matag-
ob, Leyte. Sometime in 1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused
started having lustful desire on her. The accused then inserted his nger into her
vagina. She told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe
her. She was then told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her
grandfather did to her was just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She
continued staying with her grandmother and her common law husband Alejandro
Atop, the herein accused.
On December 26, 1994, the accused again raped her. She could not ask for
help because her mouth was gagged by the accused. Aside from gagging her, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
accused also carried a knife which he placed at his side.
On December 31, 1994, while she together with her Aunt Gloria Montealto
and her two (2) nieces Rubilen and Jubilen Atop were about to go to sleep, she
noticed that the accused was looking for her. Upon seeing her the accused rushed
towards her and was about to lay on top of her. She kicked him. After that, the
accused caressed and touched his nieces but his nieces also kicked him.
Thereafter, the accused stopped molesting her and his nieces and went to sleep
instead. In the following morning, January 1, 1995, she went to the barrio to go to
school. She then forgot that there were no classes. She was not able to get a ride
towards the school, so she went directly to the house of her grandfather Zacarias
Geva. While she was at the house of her Lolo Geva, the accused arrived and
immediately entered the house of her grandfather. The accused was met by
Rubilen Atop who was about to box him but they immediately went out of the
house and the accused followed them. The accused wanted to bring her back to
their house but she refused. So, the accused pulled her. The accused kept on
holding her until they reached the waiting shed were the accused smashed her to
the concrete wall.
She reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993 and 1994
only in January 1995. It took her so long to report the said incidents because she
was afraid. The accused threatened to kill her should she tell anybody about the
incidents. She was accompanied by her Aunts Fe Decio and Rosenda Andales in
reporting the said incidents to the police. Her statement was taken by the police at
the police headquarters. Thereafter, she led a complaint with the Municipal Trial
Judge of Matag-ob, Leyte. . . . In her sworn statement which was also marked as
Exhibit '1' for the defense, she only stated therein that what was inserted into her
vagina on July 1991 was only the nger of the accused. Out of fear, she
deliberately concealed from the investigator what actually had happened to her
because at that time, because the accused was not yet apprehended and she was
afraid that the accused would kill her. Then she led complaints with the O ce
of the Provincial Prosecutor and requested the scal to make a re-investigation in
these cases. She told the Fiscal the truth of what was done to her by the accused
because at that time the accused was already arrested. . .
xxx xxx xxx
Another prosecution witness Fe Decio, an aunt of the private offended
party Regina Gua n, testi ed that she knows the accused Alejandro Atop, the
latter being her stepfather. She pointed in court the said accused. She testi ed
also that when her niece Regina Gua n went to her residence at Himarco,
Palompon, Leyte on January 2, 1995, she noticed that Regina Gua n had
abrasions on her body and was then crying. She asked her the reason why she
cried and Regina told her that on January 1, 1995 the accused again tried to rape
her but did not succeed because she fought back and was able to resist. The
abrasions in her body was the result of the maltreatments made by the accused
who forcibly pulled her back to their house. Further, Regina told her that the said
accused Alejandro Atop had raped her 3 to 4 times. She was told by Regina when
the said incidents happened but she forgot the actual dates that the latter told to
her. She accompanied Regina to the police authorities of Matag-ob, Leyte and
reported the said incidents. During the time that Regina was investigated by the
police authorities, the accused had also ed. Thereafter, she submitted Regina for
a medical examination at the Ormoc District Hospital. Then, Regina Gua n led a
complaint at the MCTC of Matag-ob, Leyte.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
On cross examination, she testi ed that they offer no objection with the
relationship of the accused to her mother. In fact during the time that the accused
and her mother were living together, they were in good terms with the accused.
She denied the fact of sending her mother to Manila for the purpose of separating
her from the accused Alejandro Atop because it was only the decision of her
mother to have a vacation in Manila. She testi ed also that the age of her mother
is more than 50 years old." 7
The third prosecution witness, Dr. Judith V. Lomocso who was a resident
gynecologist at the Ormoc District Hospital, testi ed that she examined Regina Gua n. Her
findings were reduced in writing, as follows:
"External Findings:
1. Incised wound with scab formation (L) middle finger.
2. Tenderness (L) breast.
OB-Gyne Findings:
The trial court also ruled that the circumstances of nighttime and relationship
aggravated all the three incidents of rape, but that there was no su cient evidence proving
attempted rape on December 31, 1994. Considering that the last rape occurred after the
effectivity of RA 7659, the death penalty law, the court meted out the capital punishment to
accused-appellant.
Issues
In his appeal 1 2 before us, appellant assigns the following errors: 1 3
"I. The trial court erred in appreciating the circumstances of nighttime
and relationship as aggravating the penalty imposable for the rape allegedly
committed on October 9, 1992, in 1993 and on December 26, 1994. cdrep
"II. The trial court erred in nding accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes charged."
Undisputed is the fact that appellant is not the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim. He is the common-law husband of the girl's grandmother. Needless to state,
neither is appellant the victim's "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or a nity within the third civil degree." Hence, he is not encompassed in any
of the relationships expressly enumerated in the aforecited provision.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally
construed in favor of the accused. 1 8 Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a
law which are not clearly embraced by it. No act can be pronounced criminal which is not
clearly made so by statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of a
statute can be brought within them. 1 9 Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of
the accused. 2 0
Second Issue : Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
However, we do not agree with the claim of appellant that the prosecution evidence
was not su cient to prove his guilt. In the main, appellant relies on the disparity between,
on the one hand, the allegations of Regina in her sworn statement 2 1 executed before
MCTC Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez Jr. of Matag-ob, Leyte which merely prove acts of
lasciviousness; and, on the other, her testimony in court showing three counts of rape.
Such disparity, which at rst glance may raise some doubts on the truthfulness of
complainant's statements, was cogently and satisfactorily explained by her thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
"Q . . . why did you state in your a davit that only the nger that [sic] was
inserted into your vagina?
A Because during the time of the investigation, I did not tell what was really
true because he was not yet apprehended, sir.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And what was that statement you have given to the Fiscal?
A I told the Fiscal the truth because the accused was already arrested.
Q And what was the truth?
A The truth that it was his penis that was inserted to my vagina.
Q How many times did the accused inserted [sic] his penis into your vagina?
A Many times ma'am but I can remember only three (3) to four (4) times.
Q And the first time that [sic] was on October 9, 1992?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q When was the second time he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A In the year 1993. LLpr
From the testimony of Regina, the crimes evidently committed by appellant on the
aforestated dates were consummated rapes, not merely acts of lasciviousness. Initially,
she hesitated to completely divulge her ravishment by appellant because of his threats to
kill her should she tell anybody of his assaults. 2 3 With his arrest and detention, she
mustered the courage to finally and completely reveal her embarrassing story.
No simple barrio lass would so candidly admit before the public that a man who had
lived as common-law husband to her grandmother had inserted his penis in her vagina for
so many times in the past. It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fteen years,
would allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public
trial — along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying
de lement — if she was not in fact ravished. A careful examination of her testimony does
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
not reveal any hint of prevarication. Rather, her straightforward and unequivocal
statements, during both her direct and her cross-examinations, show indelible badges of
truth. As the trial judge keenly observed, "The tears that spontaneously owed from the
private complainant's eyes and the sobs that punctuated [her] testimony when asked
about her experience with the accused eloquently conveyed the hurt, the pain, and the
anguish the private complainant has suffered and lived with during all the years. When she
told the court that she was raped by the accused, she said it all with candor. The mixed
expression of sadness and anger shown in the private complainant's face during her
testimony convinced this court that she was telling the truth." 2 4 We nd it apt to say once
again that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed. 2 5
Appellant's contention that private complainant was merely induced by her aunts
who had objected to his relationship with their mother, Trinidad Mejos, is a trite defense
that is completely undeserving of credit. It is unnatural and unbelievable for Regina's aunts
to concoct a story of rape of their own very young niece, that would bring shame and
scandal not only to her but to the entire family, especially to their mother. There could have
been so many ways to alienate appellant from their mother, so many crimes to impute to
him without dragging the family's honor into it. The preposterousness of appellant's
assertion becomes more obvious in light of the fact that this case was instituted only after
ten (10) years of his illegitimate union with Regina's grandmother. If Regina's aunts truly
wanted them to discontinue such relationship, the long wait is inexplicable.
Consequently, in the face of private complainant's positive and unequivocal
testimony, appellant's plain denial of the accusations against him cannot prevail. 2 6 It is
well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative
self-serving assertion which deserves no weight in law. 2 7 The recognized rule is that
testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are each worthy of full credence.
28
Time and again, we have also held that when the question deals with the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve
great respect and are often accorded nality, unless there appears in the record some fact
or circumstance, of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. 29
The trial judge has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of
testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, ippant or sneering
tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" 30 — all of which are useful
aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. After a thorough
review of all the evidence on record, the Court nds no reason to reverse the trial court's
findings on the guilt of appellant.
Penalties Imposable
For the rape incidents on October 9, 1992 and sometime in 1993, the court a quo
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two criminal acts. The
third rape incident, however, occurred after the effectivity of RA 7659, the law which
imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes. Under this amendatory law, the
penalty for rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon is reclusion perpetua to
death. 3 1 This provision is applicable in the instant case, since private complainant was
threatened with a knife when appellant consummated his beastly acts on her. 3 2
In cases where the penalty prescribed is composed of two indivisible penalties and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
there is neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance in the commission of the
felony, the lesser penalty should be applied. 3 3 Since there was no modifying circumstance
even in the third rape, the penalty therefor should be reclusion perpetua, not the graver
penalty of death as imposed by the court a quo. As earlier explained, the attendant
relationships enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 do not apply either. llcd
Footnotes
8. Records, p. 130.
9. The 14-page appellant's brief, dated May 22, 1997, prepared by the Public Attorney's
Office summarized the evidence for the defense (Rollo, pp. 47-48) simply as follows:
"Accused denied the charges against him. He denied committing the rape
against Regina Guafin on October 9, 1992, in the year 1993 and on December 26, 1994.
He also denied committing an offense against Regina on December 31, 1994. He
suspect[ed] that Regina was coached by her aunt in filing this complaint against him
for the purpose of separating him from his wife Trinidad.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Aside from Regina Guafin, the three sons of Trinidad and his two nieces,
Jovelyn and Rubilyn, were also living with them."
15. People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996; People vs. Broncano, G.R. No.
104870, August 22, 1996.
16. TSN, August 8, 1995, p. 41.
17. Art. 15, 2nd par., Revised Penal Code; People vs. Balondo, 30 Phil. 155, 161, October 31,
1969; People vs. Lamberte, 142 SCRA 685, 692, July 11, 1986.
18. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1990 ed., p. 208, citing People vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545,
September 5, 1975, People vs. Yu Jai, 99 Phil. 725, August 15, 1956; People vs. Terrado,
125 SCRA 648, November 25, 1983, and other cases.
19. Ibid., citing U .S . vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243, February 10, 1917, and U .S . vs.
Madrigal, 27 Phil. 347, March 28, 1914.
20. Ibid.
21. Records, pp. 122-123.
22. TSN, August 15, 1995, pp. 10-12.
29. People vs. Apilo, 263 SCRA 582, October 25, 1996, citing People vs. Gapasan, 243 SCRA
53, March 29, 1995.
30. People vs. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723, October 4, 1996, citing People vs. Delovino, 247 SCRA
637, 647, August 23, 1995.
34. People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, April 4, 1997; People vs. Apilo, 263 SCRA 582,
October 28, 1996; People vs. Escoto, 229 SCRA 430, January 21, 1994.
35. "Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony . — Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable."
36. People vs. Apilo, supra; People vs. Caballes, G.R. No. 102723-24, June 19, 1997.